Cumaean???

Pedro Pereira · 16 Dec 2007, 19:47 · from 2007-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: domus_artemis at hotmail.com (Pedro Pereira)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:47:38 +0200
Subject: (urth) Cumaean???
In-Reply-To: <47657E51.7070906 at io.com>
References: <737545.83742.qm at web63904.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<47645203.3050101 at io.com>	<BAY106-W3542083B6593268341466085610 at phx.gbl>
	<47657E51.7070906 at io.com>
Message-ID: <BAY106-W490B845FD6F8EE0C6895F85610 at phx.gbl>


> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:36:49 -0600> From: jwilson at io.com> To: urth at lists.urth.net> Subject: Re: (urth) Cumaean???> > Pedro Pereira wrote:> > > > >> > > Recursive Loop wrote:> > > > "Lune is a tricky subject. We know it LOOKS bigger than now. That > > may be because its closer. Why> > > > its closer we don't know. Maybe Wolfe assumes it would be closer do > > to gravitational attraction,> > > > but thats wrong, because the Moon is actually getting farther away > > from Earth. Maybe it was> > > > intentionally "pushed" towards the earth? Why I can't possibly > > understand. Some people say that> > > > its mass was increased. Maybe, but what for and how?"> > > >> > > > If it were terraformed, they might have pelted it with comets to > > build the atmosphere. That would> > > > increase the mass. But they also might have pelted it with rocky or > > metal asteroids to build the> > > > mass (and increase the gravity) to help retain that comet-pelting > > created atmosphere (speculation> > > > here).> > >> > > Lune may look bigger because it is closer. "...the green, reflected> > > light that fell from the myriad leaves of the Forest of Lune, fifty> > > thousand leagues away." (if an Urthly league is still three miles long,> > > that's 150,000 miles, or 3/5 of the current distance.> > >> > > The moon may not be strictly terraformed, as it is not massive enough to> > > retain useful atmosphere, and there are not enough asteroids or> > > observable comets to make it so.> > > > What about in the asteroid belt? > > As I said, there are not enough asteroids to do so. At best, they add up > to about 30% of the moon's mass.> > > > We are talking about galaxy spanning > > ship technology. I don't think there would be much a problem to increase > > the moons mass to a point where it could retain an atmosphere.> > It would be on the same order of magnitude as moving Urth herself.
That doesn't strike as much of a problem for a level of technology that puts a black hole in the center of the Sun (unless it was the Hierogrammates and not Tartaros or one of Typhon's progeny), or transforms an asteroid into the Whorl and puts it moving into relativistic speeds so that it ends up on the Solar System at the time of Green and Blue. 
Where does the material came from, well, that is a problem then...
 
 
 
> However, this mass increase would disastrously increase the tides on the > earth. Increased its mass by 8 times to that of Mars would increase the > tidal forces by 8 times as well, and still only retain a few millibars. > Also, moving the "moon" closer by 3/5 would increase the tidal forces by > the inverse fourth power for further multiplier of about 7.7. Goodbye, > Bay of Fundy!> > > > It may be be covered with greenhouse> > > domes, or anything else green-colored, making the Forest of Lune as real> > > as the Swamps of Venus were.> > > > > > I believe that Wolfe's idea is real forests on Lune, dome-free and > > covering the whole place (at least a big portion of the side facing us).> > > > On the other hand this would lead to a study on how much mass would be > > needed, at what distance the moon is, degree of compaction of the new > > added mass, etc, etc. just to know exactely how big the moon appears. > > Thats why stuff is left deliberately vague in many cases. I honestly > > don't think Wolfe gave himself all that trubble. He takes great care > > with what he does as a writter, but he's nor perfect.> > The issues I mention above were all well represented in SF and popular > science before 1980, no special study would be needed.
 
 
What is your opinion regarding the bigger appearance of the moon, then?  
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20071216/f9d74181/attachment.htm

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net